8362304: Fix JDWP spec w.r.t. OPAQUE_FRAME and INVALID_SLOT errors

[plummercj]

StackFrame.SetValues, StackFrame.GetValues, ThreadReference.PopFrames, and ThreadReference.ForceEarlyReturn all need updated language related to OPAQUE_FRAME error.

(1) The spec for JVMTI says the following for GetLocalsXXX and SetLocalsXXX

The implementation is unable to set the frame locals
(e.g. the frame at depth is executing a native method).

However, the JDWP StackFrame.SetValues and GetValues commands only mention OPAQUE_FRAME for SetValues when not called for the topmost frame of a virtual thread suspended at an event. I don't think there is anything to prevent OPAQUE_FRAME due to the thread being native or some other reason as mentioned in the JVMTI spec. The JDWP spec should be updated to reflect this.

(1) The spec for JVMTI says the following for PopFrame and ForceEarlyReturn:

The implementation is unable to force the current frame to return
(e.g. current frame is executing a native method).

However, the JDWP ThreadReference.PopFrames, and ThreadReference.ForceEarlyReturn commands only mention OPAQUE_FRAME when this commands are not called for the topmost frame of a virtual thread suspended at an event. I don't think there is anything to prevent OPAQUE_FRAME due to the thread being native or some other reason as mentioned in the JVMTI spec. The JDWP spec should be updated to reflect this.

(3) Another issue is that INVALID_SLOT is missing in the JDWP spec for SetValues, but is there for GetValues. It should be mentioned for both commands.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change requires CSR request JDK-8362656 to be approved

Issues

• JDK-8362304: Fix JDWP spec w.r.t. OPAQUE_FRAME and INVALID_SLOT errors (Bug - P4)
• JDK-8362656: Fix JDWP spec w.r.t. OPAQUE_FRAME and INVALID_SLOT errors (CSR)

Reviewers

• Serguei Spitsyn (@sspitsyn - Reviewer)
• Alan Bateman (@AlanBateman - Reviewer)
• Alex Menkov (@alexmenkov - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26336/head:pull/26336
$ git checkout pull/26336

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/26336
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26336/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 26336

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 26336

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26336.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[plummercj]

/csr needed

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back cjplummer! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

@plummercj has indicated that a compatibility and specification (CSR) request is needed for this pull request.

@plummercj please create a CSR request for issue JDK-8362304 with the correct fix version. This pull request cannot be integrated until the CSR request is approved.

[openjdk]

@plummercj The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• core-libs

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (b99935a0)
• 00: Full (27bfb72a)

[plummercj]

/label add serviceability

[plummercj]

/label remove core-libs

[openjdk]

@plummercj
The serviceability label was successfully added.

[openjdk]

@plummercj
The core-libs label was successfully removed.

[plummercj]

Ping. just triggering first email to serviceability-dev.

[sspitsyn]

This looks good. Also, I'll wait for CSR to review.

[AlanBateman]

Updated version looks good.

[sspitsyn]

The update looks good.

[sspitsyn]

I think, this issue needs a Release Note, same as the JNI related enhancement. Not sure about the JVMTI related spec update as it has pure spec clarifications which do not have even minor compatibility issues.

[AlanBateman]

I think, this issue needs a Release Note, same as the JNI related enhancement. Not sure about the JVMTI related spec update as it has pure spec clarifications which do not have even minor compatibility issues.

I agree. Also one release note to cover the 3 interfaces would be clearer than separate notes.

[plummercj]

I think, this issue needs a Release Note, same as the JNI related enhancement. Not sure about the JVMTI related spec update as it has pure spec clarifications which do not have even minor compatibility issues.

I agree. Also one release note to cover the 3 interfaces would be clearer than separate notes.

Keep in mind that the APIs in question do not map 1-to-1 across these interfaces. For example, NativeMethodException is unique to JDI, and JDI get/setValue() is implemented such that it cannot end up failing due to NativeMethodException. Also, JDI needed implementation changes whereas JVMTI and JDWP did not.